5

I included a few tall images in a recent question I asked on space.se. I thought they would scale to something appropriate, but as they are very tall images, it really didn't. For your information, here is one of them posted here. Can you set a reasonable max height in the CSS for images?

enter image description here

  • 7
    Possible duplicate of Automatically resize uploaded images. Also, if there's no reason the image couldn't be rotated 90° then you should do so before uploading. Users with the technical expertise would be kind to optimally compress their images prior to uploading. In previous cases I've seen the Moderators edit to reduce the size of the image if they spot the post (perhaps they receive an automatic notification?). – Rob Mar 29 at 23:10
  • 2
    Not a duplicate. The other one is about image size in bytes, not image dimensions. That said, it is not a bug, but a design feature request. – Shadow Wizard Mar 30 at 10:21
  • Agree, they are related, but the solution to the other question clearly not the answer here. Keeping the full sized image is still desired, just not showing all of it. – PearsonArtPhoto Mar 30 at 10:25
2

Personally, I don't think it makes sense to impose a global limit. Sometimes you might want a tall image (although I can't think of any specific examples). It's also pretty rare for this to come up. Most images tend to be at the most slightly taller than they are wide, if even that.

I've been visiting MetaSE for a while now, and one thing I've noticed regularly is that Stack Exchange isn't that keen on investing developer time into issues with small radii of effect. If it were common for people to post super tall images, they might do something, but this is the first I've personally seen that's just ridiculous (although I don't spend time on SpaceSE).

To address the point of possible abuse, that definitely is a potential problem, but I don't think an image height limit is going to dissuade a troll. They'll just abuse something else. I've also never seen someone posting an image anywhere near even 20,000px tall, much less 200,000px, and that's including square or landscape images.

Another reason I don't think it makes sense to impose a height limit is because you can pretty easily do it yourself (or do it for someone else). Since it's a definite edge case that images are so much taller than they are wide that they take up too much vertical space, it makes more sense, to me at least, to just "fix" images individually.

Take a look at this Super User post, which has some ways to set the size of the image.

While it doesn't work for this particular image, with Imgur links you can generally add a, m, l, h, etc at the end of the image ID (just before the .png or .jpg extension), to set the rough size.

Or, you can try:

<img src="[url]" height="[nnn]">

Example (500px height):

  • So the solution is for each user to manually code it in HTML? That seems a strange choice... – PearsonArtPhoto Mar 30 at 10:38
  • @PearsonArtPhoto in most cases, it isn't needed. – TheWanderer Mar 30 at 12:53
  • This answer does nothing to address the feature request to have this handled at the server level. – Jason Bassford Mar 30 at 13:27
  • @JasonBassford I address it in the last paragraph. I don't think there's a point, because it's an edge case and can be self-fixed easily. – TheWanderer Mar 30 at 13:32
  • It might be an edge case with this image, but imagine that someone deliberately included an image that was VERY tall, say 200,000 pixels tall. It might fit the size restrictions, but could be a bit difficult to do anything about, for instance. – PearsonArtPhoto Mar 30 at 16:59
  • @PearsonArtPhoto if someone is intentionally abusing their privileges they'll probably be suspended or warned. In any case, that hasn't happened yet that I know of. – TheWanderer Mar 30 at 18:21
  • @JasonBassford I've moved my opinion to the top and expanded on it. – TheWanderer Mar 30 at 18:44

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .